This is where people make absolutely no sense to me. Of course, it's a Democrat trying to push back on the Pro-Lifers. This is scraping the bucket.

Pro-lifers want an ultrasound before an abortion. Makes sense. Not all may agree but it makes sense.

Pro-choicer's argument? Well then, men with erectile dysfunction should get a rectal exam.

Who turned over the rock??? And please put it back!!! Things like this make my head hurt.

Basically, Sen Janet Howell (Democrat from Fairfax) feels if a pregnant woman should have an ultrasound before an abortion, men should undergo added medical consults before getting a prescription for any erectile dysfunction drug. Her justification? An ultrasound prior to an abortion is unnecessary and invasive. Gender equality.

What are the additional medical tests for the man with Erectile Dysfunction who wants a Viagra prescription? A digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test. Seriously. She is proposing an ammendment on this.

This is going up against Sen. Jill Vogel (Republican Fauquier) who is heading the ultrasound bill. Sen Vogel's proposal would require all women who are choosing to have an abortion to have an ultrasonic image taken of the fetus to determine gestational age. The woman is then offered the opportunity to see the image or hear the fetal heartbeat but this is not a requirement.

There are many considerations already taken into men being prescribed erectile dysfunction pills. Before Sen. Howell spoke, she should realize that a prudent doctor will review for cardiac risk factors, other causes for erectile dysfunction, etc prior to jumping to an ED drug. Her argument has to be a joke.

Pregnancy on the other hand....
Personally, I think it's safer physically for the woman choosing to have the abortion to find out how far along she is through an ultrasound. Women who suddenly find themselves pregnant are not the same women who are planning to be pregnant. The "oops" women usually don't realize how far along they are when they think they may be pregnant.

While I am not for abortion, the safe thing to do (and accurate) would be an ultrasound to figure out gestational age and if it's a multiples pregnancy. Giving the woman the chance to hear the heartbeat or see a picture can save a life. If a woman is on the fence on having an abortion, something that simple may just change her mind.

Abortion and Viagra are not two in the same. Pregnancy is not aquired by a pill and rectal exam. Erectile dysfunction could be caused by a number of ailments or medications but a Viagra does not equal a baby. And, if she thinks that the ultrasound is as insulting as a rectal exam, then she has never seen an abortion and what that procedure entails. I think the abortion trumps all. Not to mention the loss of life. I'm sure, if she has children, the first time she saw their heartbeats on an ultrasound she fell in love with her children like most women do.

Maybe, instead of her asinine solution to gender equality in this, she should have proposed the men who fathered these children be required to go to the abortion clinic and be given the same elective of visualizing or hearing the child he helped create? Oh, what am I thinking---the pro-choicer's will scream,"IT'S MY BODY AND MY CHOICE! KEEP THE MEN / GOVERNMENT / MARS / (fill in any blank) OUT OF MY UTERUS!"

Well then, "Ladies," you should have keep those men out of your vagina. Used the free govenment funding for birth control through Planned Parenthood and Mars---well--I have no comparison.

9 Comments On This Entry

I would counter with a bill stating that all Presidential candidate hopefuls present their actual birth certificates and complete school records and business records prior to running, and be grilled by a bi-partisan committee of congressmen, senators, journalists, and conservative and liberal talk show hosts about any controversial friends and acquaintances they have as well as their prior political affiliations and published writings.

If they can pass all that, THEN they can run for their party's nomination.

This bill would also have the effect of changing the nature of politics in general. Instead of "gotcha" ads and personal attacks during debates, the candidates, already properly vetted to weed out the extremists and the unpatriotic, will be free to concentrate on the country's business instead.

An ultrasound is not necessarily just a little gel on the belly. If the pregnancy is only a few weeks along, a traditional ultrasound won't "see" the fetus. So then an internal ultrasound is required - that is inserting a wand into the woman's vagina - potentially against her will.
Now a man may not want a rectal exam, but it may be medically necessary in some cases, this viagra discussion aside. Whereas, an ultrasound is not medically necessary. So it is invasive and wasteful (is the gov't paying for the ultrasound or is this expense also forced on the woman?)

Since the need for viagra could definitely be caused by prostate problems, the exam's not such a bad idea before proscribing the drug. However, that might encourage the men to seek further treatment, and that's currently being discouraged, so I doubt the bill will get anywhere.

I don't see how you can "equate" a woman's reproductive organs with a man's bowels. (I mean, men and women BOTH evacuate waste. Therefore, a man's bowels have more to do with a woman's bowels than they do with her uterus. Right? Yes?) This just proves that when a lib thinks they've made a brilliant point they have usually just made them self look foolish.

In a way, it makes perfect sense to me. After all, it takes twisted logic to dispute that a woman is pregnant with anything besides a baby, so Ms. Howell is using twisted logic to come up with her argument.

Folks, women don't give birth to a bunch of cells. They give birth to babies and what you are destroying with an abortion is a baby, plain and simple.

Still trying to get the whole,"Woman is being made to have a transvaginal ultrasound against her will.." thing. Makes it sound like she's being raped with a transvaginal ultrasound. I've had quite a few and didn't feel raped. Did I "willingly" want them? No. But for whatever reason (infertility was one reason so I had MANY and then to rule out ovarian cysts or something like that..) it's not a big deal. Most women have had them. We realize there are more than "just the squirt of gel on our stomachs" ultrasound.

So, 4LetterState, you would say an abortion is less invasive than a transvaginal ultrasound?

Do you agree that people who have abortions are usually pretty aware of how far along they are? You don't think that some women who are desperate to have an abortion may lie and say they are under 3 months so they don't have to go through all the red tape a woman who is further along has to go through? I realize there are blood tests to check hormone levels but that can be off if there are multiples in the pregnancy.

Let's say that the average woman who does choose to have an abortion is really further along than she thinks she is. Do you honestly feel a first trimester abortion is the appropriate "procedure" for a second trimester pregnancy? (Again, I am not for abortion.) Where I am going with this...would you agree, if you are for abortion and you are for Healthcare reform and appropriate medical practice that having an ultrasound (external or internal) would be more prudent to do than just diving through the cervix and sucking out the fetus when it should have be torn up into little bits? See, if it's a second trimester and they try to vacuum out the baby (call it a clump of cells--whatever) then there are going to be some left overs and the woman who was pregnant is now going to be very sick with a uterine infection because some baby parts or placenta are left behind. If you know it should be torn out limb by limb and "extracted" that way, all you pro-choicers have a better and safer abortion for your women's bodies. You following me? If you have to have a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an ovarian cyst removal then by all means, why aren't you all for safety when it comes to one when you're having a "mass" removed from your uterus???

As far as what you can see in a TVS---I could see my eggs developing on my ovaries. There are ways to check to see if there is something / someone, excuse me, growing in a uterus.

Sometimes, there are really people that don't even have concern to a baby or even on a fetus. Not thinking that it is still a child that needs our love and care. We cannot force them to act and believe what we believe and act because they are not us. They can act what they want, but not to the point that they will include those innocent one.

I don’t think the Senator Howell’s proposed amendment was a joke per se; rather it seems like politics as usual. She could have expressed (and did express) her opposition to the bill by speaking on the floor and voting against it but who pays attention to things like that? By proposing this amendment (which she surely must have known had little to no change of passing) she gets her picture in the paper and sends a message to her supporters. It’s a fairly common tactic used by representatives of all stripes.

A couple of questions; please try to set aside Howell’s comments for a moment:

Dublin5, you suggested that it’s safer for a pregnant woman to undergo these ultrasound procedures when considering an abortion. You also acknowledge that it’s safer for a man to undergo additional procedures before considering a prescription for Viagra. You’re apparently okay with the former being mandated by the government but not the latter. If I’m reading this accurately then I’m not sure I understand why you (or anyone) would feel that way.

You say that a “prudent doctor” will know when to recommend the additional procedures for men with ED. Wouldn’t a “prudent doctor” also know when to recommend the additional procedures for a pregnant woman? Aren’t there “many considerations” in both cases? Are women’s health specialists somehow less prudent than men’s health specialists? So much so that we need the government to step in? If we leave one situation up to professional prudence then why not the other?

Clearly the procedures are not the same (except perhaps for their intrusiveness) but from a pro-life and procreation perspective, wouldn’t we want more men to take Viagra (if they need it)?

Yes, I’m playing devil’s advocate (to a certain extent) because the conservative side of my political beliefs includes smaller, less intrusive government, and more personal freedom (and responsibility). For both examples, the necessity of the procedures is context-specific and is (should be?) a call best made by medical professionals in consultation with their patients. I think we don’t want or need the heavy hand of the government pushing us into medical procedures that are not otherwise indicated. (There’s already a huge problem with the government spooning with Big Pharma.) Can it be that you’re okay with this unnecessary law because you favor the presumed outcome?

Confirm Delete

Manage Comments

Be Yourself. Everyone is already taken.

http://img.photobuck.../Dsc00535-1.jpgI know when the Spirit of God is there, animals are the first ones to mellow out."If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers, 1897-1935"The poor dog, in life the firmest friend,The first to welcome, foremost to defend,Whose honest heart is still the master's own,Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,Unhonour'd falls, unnoticed all his worth,Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth,While man, vain insect hopes to be forgiven,And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven."Lord Byron Inscription on the monument of his Newfoundland dog, 1808" He is your friend, your partner,your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He willbe yours, faithful and true, to the last beatof his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy ofsuch devotion." Unknown